India Kings

Naa, this topic is not about your favorite brands of Cigarette haha!

I was just wondering, Which Indian ruler according to you was the best and Why?

I think my favourite king was Asoka the great!! He unified his kingdom, our country progressed the most during his era and he spread the Indian culture beyond the borders of Indian frontiers! Not just that, he was a learned king, had a glorious empire and he spread the message of peace and prosperity amongst his subjects (after he went through a transformation of course) but for all I know about Asoka, I absolutely love him!

hmmmmm....... vineet do you also know ashoka was also the king who conquested almost the who of india,until he reached kalinga.so much for peace? true later he did realise his mistakes.but personally i think my personal hero is Akbar the great. i think it was under his reign that different religions came together,genuine efforts were made to maintain peace among religions (he even came up wid hs own religion).also some of the most fantastic work in art a nd sculptor was done during his times!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi vineet..do u know Akbar the "great" was not so great.You must be aware of Ashokan Dhamma(preachings).it said there should be no injury to animals.Despite this in his royal kitchen peacock's flesh was prepared quite often(read Ashoka and the decline of mauryan empire by Romila Thapar). And even after Kalinga his quest for power didnt stop.He was influenced by Buddhism but you know even Gautam Buddha ate pork.So guys..history is a very interesting subject.It's not about mugging up dates and names..there's lot more to it.

In history all I know is that Red Fort was Shah Jahan's house:scratch: ...I used to hate this subject:study: ...And Vineet if you really want me to chose one Indian ruler then I can do inky pinky ponky and pick one...

samridhi wrote:

hmmmmm....... vineet do you also know ashoka was also
the king who conquested almost the who of india,until he reached
kalinga.so much for peace?
true later he did realise his mistakes.but personally i think my
personal hero is Akbar the great. i think it was under his reign that
different religions came together,genuine efforts were made to maintain
peace among religions (he even came up wid hs own religion).also some
of the most fantastic work in art a nd sculptor was done during his
times!!!!!!!!!!!

I know about Kalinga and I had that account in mind when I wrote about Asoka, but do you think wars are always bad? Infact it is only modern warfare that is destructive. In the past, wars have proved to be of immense importance and has had good effects too. I'm not propagating warfare, but we can't deny that whatever cultural boundaries we have today is a result of wars in the past.

I agree that Akbar unified India in terms of religion, but I believe that enough damage was done before and after Akbar's reign and hence I am not positive about the overall Mughal rule in India, so I don't really care about him. And also if you consider arts and sculptors, don't you think we progressed a lot during Asoka's time too?

Pragya: I understand your logic of Choosing Akbar over Asoka, and I have already read (in parts) that book by Romlia Thapar (she's great isn't it?!), but what's wrong with having a quest for power? Its the duty of a King to expand his territory and protect his subjects. Infact we are comparing two completely different eras in History. During Asoka's time, Christianity and Islam had not even come to existance, and Monotheism was far from being practiced by most people. During Akbar's time, war on religion had already swallowed millions of lives and it was logical on his part to respect all religions if he wanted peace and prosperity in his Kingdom. But considering this, I think Askoa did a far better job in unifying his subjects in the name of Religion alone!

I don't want to write everything at once as this is damn interesting! I will post more as we progress :p

yeah...but i am not talking about religion here..even Akbar's din-i-ilahi was amalgamation of different religions.and there is nothing wrong with quest for power.every ruler wants to expand.What I am saying is that Ashoka did not change after Kalinga war.If he believed in non-violence and non injury to animals then why in his royal kitchen peacock's flesh was prepared.

If you want to talk about a hindu ruler then in my opinion Samudragupta (of Gupta dynasty)was quite a remarkable ruler.He was also known as the 'Napoleon of India'.His reigning period may be described as a vast military campaign.He was able to extend his empire in almost all directions (east,west,north and south) and assumed the title of Maharajadhiraja (The King of the Kings).

Vineet wrote:

but what's wrong with having a quest for power? Its the duty of a King to expand his territory and protect his subjects.

I suppose you hold the British Empire too in great reverence? They had pretty similar motives..

I really appreciate Akbar's Din-i-illahi.. That's something I've retained in my mind all along because of it's very nobility..

ah you know....the topic is really subjective and you cannot point to one Indian king who was so great. First off all it should have been the best king to rule in India, rather than Best Indian King (cause then technically the mughals and a lot of other dynasties would never be included in this discussion).

And speaking of Asoka, even he was not the best ruler. HE had so many wars, which were not a result of enemy aggression.

I think there was only one king in Indian history who did not have any wars in his span of rule (which was more than 10 yrs)...i dont exactly rememmber his name, but he was a king in the Maurya dynasty.....but i'll have to check with my sis (she's doing m.a. history )

woah!!!!!!!!!!damn intresting!!!!!!!!!!guys i have a problem with the statement, about it being the duty of a king to expand his territorry.i also do not agree with vineet when he says that wars have proved to be useful. No war can ever be useful, yaar. do you think you would not have survived had you been a part of any other country!or for that matter any other state in india? all the wars that have happend in history are just beacause of man's need for power!it is not the duty of a king to expand his territory but his hunger power! i am sure, as arjun points out there will be other rulers too who have had a peaceful reign! but it is akbar who has been most impactful !
as far as ashoka is concerned, yes a lot of work in art and sculpture was done, but it was akbar who kept the hindus and muslims together.since history has seen clashes between the two communities

dhruvkh wrote:

I suppose you hold the British Empire too in great reverence? They had pretty similar motives..

I really appreciate Akbar's Din-i-illahi.. That's something I've retained in my mind all along because of it's very nobility..

I do not hold British Empire in great reverence, why should I? I would have, if my ancestory and culture belonged to the Saxons, but fortunately that's not the case! But lets be practical here. I never had any problems with the concept of the Britishers expanding their territories, or any other European country for that matter. It has always been natural in the past for any powerful nation/race to expand their area and gather more power and respect. I don't think there is any logic of being patriotic here. We have also expanded our lands in the past and unified our people in whatever ways we could. Wasn't that the same when mughals invaded our lands and stayed back as Indians? They too had a quest for money and power. What I disliked was the way the Britons treated our countrymen and disrespected our culture (similar with most of the mughal rulers).

Samridhi: I don't think wars are useless. Its actually "modern" warfare which is destructive and hopeless, simply because it causes mass destruction and killings of the innocent. In the past, wars were more healthy and glorious, be it the Greeks, Egyptians or Mayans, war has always had good effects in the long lasting rule of any culture. Again, I am not talking about Genghis Khan's conquest for blood and money. Obviously such wars had its evil effects, but I think it was very necessary for our evolution as a whole (no wonder he is still worshipped by mongolians all across!)..

Vineet wrote:

Its actually "modern" warfare which is destructive and hopeless, simply because it causes mass destruction and killings of the innocent. In the past, wars were more healthy and glorious, be it the Greeks, Egyptians or Mayans, war has always had good effects in the long lasting rule of any culture.

On the contrary, we choose to glorify all those conquests of the past because we do not suffer the consequences of those wars..

We celebrate the wars in the Ramayan and Mahabharat and are in awe of the mighty conquests of Alexander..

But those wars weren't all that different. They occurred with the selfish motives of expanding one's territory, one's control.. The aftermath is scarcely ever spoken off..

If it weren't for the media glare today, we still wouldn't know of what a soldier's family went through and we'd look back at the Kargil as a glorious war in which India threw off invaders and the Iraq war as the mighty downfall of a Dictator..

Remove the weapons of mass destruction, withdraw the guns and the bombs. Hand them back their swords, armours and shields..
War is still ugly. And you only know it when you see it for yourself.

I have seen war dude and I would still go and fight for my country if need be. Its better than sitting peacefully like a hippy and passing judgements and see my country being invaded. Do not forget that wars need not always be with a motive of expanding borders, but it could be with a motive to protect one's honour and territorial control. It is essential to prevent killings which might happen due to foreign invasions. Plus it immensely protects one's culture from being mutilated by outsiders. I really don't see anything wrong with war..

As for the family thing, I think you missed the point entirely. Why should a soldier's family be devastated if their son died in war? If they were so scared of the consequences, they should not have sent him on war at the first place. This too is a part of the so called modern media hype. I can quote you examples from the past where the royal families had castaway their sons simply because they lost in a war or came flying back from the battle-field in order to save their lives. So the point here is that not everyone was/is meant to go on a war, and I think our people need to embrace this very fact, and not nit-pick the cause of war itself.

well vineet i buy your statement to some extent..there is nothing bad with war as long as it is not detrimental to humanity.

@Vineet
Well, yes, it is very noble to stand up and defend your nation in time of war when your country is being evaded.

On the flip side, another country is invading for the purpose of more territory (Kargil) or alleged selfish purposes (Iraq) and it is the other side that I condemn.

As for your second comment, I think we'd need to be in place of a soldier standing on the brink of death at war or a family member to truly understand the meaning of losing a son/husband/father.
I don't think it's a family's choice to send one's child away to war. It's the soldier's decision, whether born out of desire or compulsion.

As for royal families, I really doubt those sentiments apply in today's scenario..

"well vineet i buy your statement to some extent..there is nothing bad with war as long as it is not detrimental to humanity."
arre what's wrong?????????how can war 'not' be detrimental to humanity?which war does not include killings in blood shed.be it modern warfare as vineet points out or be it wars under kings.we just choose glorify some of them.

i sooo agree wid dhruv.to fight for "one's honour" is just one of the techniques to glorify war some one else's cause. as for mythology,many of our modern rituals,belifes, way of living is guidede by the same,and i thin k many o them can be pretty oppresive, an d rather retrogressive,so if we tell each other tales of the great mahabharta. we are stupid.
NOTE:i do not say we should suffer tyranny, and injustice.

guys as far as ramayana and mahabhata are concerned...i dont think its true ...we dont have any written record or inscriptions describing them..

y? pragya i think we do have records but their relevence is what we have to consider today!

Yup!
I second Sam, we do have written records. Maybe people can question their authenticity if they want but not their existence!

sam is there any record for ramayana?

Vineet wrote:

I know about Kalinga and I had that account in mind when I wrote about Asoka, but do you think wars are always bad? Infact it is only modern warfare that is destructive. In the past, wars have proved to be of immense importance and has had good effects too. I'm not propagating warfare, but we can't deny that whatever cultural boundaries we have today is a result of wars in the past.

Hahaha. So only modern warfare is destructive?

I am pained to find that you forgot about a certain Genghis Khan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_khan

Wars have always been destructive. Why? Because they entail killing somebody just because he happened to be born in a place not your own.

Wars may or may not have positive fallouts. That is a complex issue. One could argue that a large-scale war in Kashmir could finally end the decades long dispute and thus get rid of terrorism in South Asia etc. This would be a tenous argument at best, and would still be offset by the logical answer that wars are faught due to people's obsession to bring more territory under their command. If there were no borders, and no notion of countries, there'd be no wars, at least on territorial grounds.

Once again, we have inherited national boundaries as a result of wars. National boundaries are not necessarily cultural boundaries. The question arises whether culture truly has a boundary? It has a boundary only in cases where propogation of culture becomes too closely enmeshed with political control. A classic example where cultural boundaries have not been directed by warfare is the spread of Buddhism in Japan and China. Buddhists never attacked these countries and converted people to their faith. Instead Buddhists beliefs were spread there by priests, missionaries, artists and reformers. So, cultural beliefs can be spread without the use of warfare.

^ You have not read my posts closely. Go back to the first page. I did mention about Genghis Khan :)

Vineet wrote:

Samridhi: I don't think wars are
useless. Its actually "modern" warfare which is destructive and
hopeless, simply because it causes mass destruction and killings of the
innocent. In the past, wars were more healthy and glorious, be it the
Greeks, Egyptians or Mayans, war has always had good effects in the
long lasting rule of any culture. Again, I am not talking about Genghis
Khan's conquest for blood and money. Obviously such wars had its evil
effects, but I think it was very necessary for our evolution as a whole
(no wonder he is still worshipped by mongolians all across!)..

Pragya wrote:

well vineet i buy your statement to some extent..there is nothing bad with war as long as it is not detrimental to humanity.

A question for you. What do you define as detrimental to humanity?

War [as in the case of most mass phenomena] needs to looked at from two perspectives - the macro view and the micro view. The problem is that we too often look at only the biggest possible picture, and we start thinking of war in terms of glory and national pride and honour and dignity.

In doing so, we miss the other side of the picture.

Vineet has said that in the past "wars were more healthy and glorious". This view can only be born out of fanciful thinking that wars in the past were fought only on battlefields in a well-ordered manner in the form of rows and columns [as depicted on popular television and in films]. The harsh reality is that any army needs recruits[usually healthy young men to fight and healthy young women to use] and supplies to continue to be effective. Such recruits and supplies were picked up more often that not from conquered territories and from hapless settlements caught in the crossfire.

The harsh truth is that war has always involved the killing of the innocent [the uninvolved and the non-combatants]. Besides, at a philosophical level what is most disgusting is that you're attacking, maiming and killing a person not because of any personal grudge [and such actions are not tolerated even then in a civilized society] but just because that person becomes for you a symbol of an enemy state.

The worst thing about war is that any war involves the temporary suspension of civilization. In the simplest terms civilization can be defined as respect for a certain code of ethics and practices [or in other words, the rule of law]. War, by its very nature involves suspension of the rule of law so that one can go and kill others who are no more culpable than oneself.

One can very conveniently say that Greek and Egyptian and Mayan wars were noble while those fought by Genghis Khan were not. But the motivating factors were the same in both cases - the quest for greater territorial control, which translates into greater power and riches.

War is terrible just because one actually believes and practices the dictum that everything is fair in war. "Everything" is never fair at any time. Nothing should give a person or a society or a state the power to interfere with the personal liberty, life and limb of another.

[quote="Vineet"]^ You have not read my posts closely. Go back to the first page. I did mention about Genghis Khan :)

So you did. I am sorry for the oversight.

But please respond also to the distinction I've made between national and cultural boundaries, which anyways is the more important part of the argument.